Landscape Ecology

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 313–325 | Cite as

Communities in context: the influences of multiscale environmental variation on local ant community structure

Research Article

Abstract

We explored the ways in which environmental variation at multiple spatial scales influences the organization of ant species into local communities. Ground-dwelling ants were sampled in sandhill habitat at 33 locations throughout northern Florida, USA. Variance partitioning of local, landscape, and regional datasets using partial redundancy analysis indicates that ant community composition is significantly influenced by environmental variability across all scales of analysis. Habitat generalists appear to replace habitat specialists at sites with high proportions of matrix habitat in the surrounding landscape. Conversely, habitat specialists appear to replace habitat generalists at sites with more sandhill habitat in the surrounding landscape and greater amounts of bare ground locally. Local niche differentiation leading to species-sorting, combined with the effects of spatially structured dispersal dynamics at landscape scales, may explain this pattern of community structure. Regional influences on local ant communities were correlated with geographical and environmental gradients at distinct regional scales. Therefore, local ant communities appear to be simultaneously structured by different processes that occur at separate spatial scales: local, landscape, and regional scales defined by spatial extent. Our results illustrate the importance of considering multiscale influences on patterns of organization in ecological communities.

Keywords

Spatial scale Community Metacommunity Local Landscape Regional Generalist Specialist Ants Sandhill 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Baban, E. Bruna, A. George, R. Holt, B. Inouye, T. Kim, J. King, J. Southworth, T. Crist, and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and discussion. We also thank the Florida Division of Forestry, Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, and the Ordway-Swisher Biological Station for logistical support. S. Iguchi, K. Larson, and J. Vanderberg assisted with field and lab work. Funding was provided by the USDA T-STAR program, and the University of Florida TCD program.

Supplementary material

10980_2007_9186_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.8 mb)
(DOC 1806 kb)

References

  1. Agosti D, Majer JD, Alonso LE, Schultz TR (eds) (2000) Ants: standardized methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Amarasekare P (2003) Competitive coexistence in spatially structured environments: a synthesis. Ecol Lett 6:1109–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bestelmeyer BT, Wiens JA (2001) Local and regional-scale responses of ant diversity to a semiarid biome transition. Ecography 24:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borcard D, Legendre P (2002) All-scale spatial analysis of ecological data by means of principal coordinates of neighbour matrices. Ecol Modell 153:51–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borcard D, Legendre P, Drapeau P (1992) Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73:1045–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borcard D, Legendre P, Avois-Jacquet C, Tuomisto H (2004) Dissecting the spatial structure of ecological data at multiple scales. Ecology 85:1826–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brotons L, Monkkonen M, Martin JL (2003) Are fragments islands? Landscape context and density-area relationships in boreal forest birds. Am Nat 162:343–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A (1977) Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58:445–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Weathers KC (2004) Effect of landscape boundaries on the flux of nutrients, detritus, and organisms. In: Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GR (eds) Food webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 154–168Google Scholar
  10. Carroll ML, DiMiceli CM, Sohlberg RA, Townshend JRG (2005) 250 m MODIS normalized difference vegetation index. The Global Land Cover Facility, College ParkGoogle Scholar
  11. Chase JM (1996) Differential competitive interactions and the included niche: an experimental analysis with grasshoppers. Oikos 76:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chase JM, Leibold MA (2003) Ecological niches. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Chesson P (2000) General theory of competitive coexistence in spatially-varying environments. Theor Popul Biol 58:211–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cook WM, Lane KT, Holt RD (2002) Island theory, matrix effects and species richness patterns in habitat fragments. Ecol Lett 5:619–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cottenie K (2005) Integrating environmental and spatial processes in ecological community dynamics. Ecol Lett 8:1175–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cumming GS, Spiesman BJ (2006) Regional problems need integrated solutions: pest management and conservation biology in agroecosystems. Biol Conserv 131:533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Curtis JT (1959) The vegetation of Wisconsin: an ordination of plant communities. University of Wisconsin Press, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  18. Debinski DM, Holt RD (2000) A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation experiments. Conserv Biol 14:342–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Debuse VJ, King J, House APN (2007) Effect of fragmentation, habitat loss and within-patch characteristics on ant assemblages in semi-arid woodlands of eastern Australia. Landsc Ecol 22:731–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deyrup M, Cover S (2004) A new species of Odontomachus ant (Hymenoptera : Formicidae) from inland ridges of Florida, with a key to Odontomachus of the United States. Fla Entomol 87:136–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Deyrup M, Davis L, Cover S (2000) Exotic ants in Florida. Trans Am Entomol Soc 126:293–326Google Scholar
  22. ESRI (1999) ArcView version 3.3. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  23. Gotelli NJ, Ellison AM (2002) Biogeography at a regional scale: determinants of ant species density in New England bogs and forests. Ecology 83:1604–1609Google Scholar
  24. Graves GR, Rahbek C (2005) Source pool geometry and the assembly of continental avifaunas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:7871–7876PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hanski I, Gilpin M (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc 42:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Henschel JR, Mahsberg D, Stumpf H (2001) Allochthonous aquatic insects increase predation and decrease herbivory in river shore food webs. Oikos 93:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoffmann BD, Andersen AN (2003) Response of ants to disturbance in Australia, with particular reference to functional groups. Austral Ecol 28:444–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (1990) The ants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Holt RD (1993) Ecology at the mesoscale: the influence of regional processes on local communities. In: Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds) Species diversity in ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 77–88Google Scholar
  30. Holt RD (2004) Implications of system openness for local community structure and ecosystem function. In: Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GR (eds) Food webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 96–114Google Scholar
  31. Holt RD, Barfield M (2003) Impacts of temporal variation on apparent competition and coexistence in open ecosystems. Oikos 101:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holyoak M, Leibold MA, Holt RD (eds) (2005) Metacommunities: spatial dynamics and ecological communities. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  33. Karlson RH, Cornell HV (1998) Scale-dependent variation in local vs. regional effects on coral species richness. Ecol Monogr 68:259–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. King JR (2007) Patterns of co-occurrence and body size overlap among ants in Florida’s upland ecosytems. Ann Zool Fenn 44:189–201Google Scholar
  35. King JR, Porter SD (2005) Evaluation of sampling methods and species richness estimators for ants in upland ecosystems in Florida. Environ Entomol 34:1566–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kneitel JM, Chase JM (2004) Trade-offs in community ecology: linking spatial scales and species coexistence. Ecol Lett 7:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Legendre P, Gallagher ED (2001) Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data. Oecologia 129:271–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leibold MA, Holyoak M, Mouquet N, Amarasekare P, Chase JM, Hoopes MF, Holt RD, Shurin JB, Law R, Tilman D, Loreau M, Gonzalez A (2004) The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol Lett 7:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lubertazzi D, Tschinkel WR (2003) Ant community change across a ground vegetation gradient in north Florida’s longleaf pine flatwoods. J Insect Sci 3:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacArthur RH (1958) Population ecology of some warblers of northeastern coniferous forests. Ecology 39:599–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. MacArthur RH (1972) Geographical ecology. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Marquet PA, Cofre H (1999) Large temporal and spatial scales in the structure of mammalian assemblages in South America: a macroecological approach. Oikos 85:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marvier M, Kareiva P, Neubert MG (2004) Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and disturbance promote invasion by habitat generalists in a multispecies metapopulation. Risk Anal 24:869–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Myers RL, Ewel JJ (eds) (1990) Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  45. Noss RF, LaRoe ET III, Scott JM (1995) Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. National Biologic Survey Biological Report 28, Department of the Interior, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  46. Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre L, O’Hara B (2006) vegan: Community ecology package. Version 1.8-2. URL http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/.
  47. Peres-Neto PR, Legendre P, Dray S, Borcard D (2006) Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87:2614–2625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Polis GA, Anderson WB, Holt RD (1997) Toward an integration of landscape and food web ecology: the dynamics of spatially subsidized food webs. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:289–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Polis GA, Power ME, Huxel GR (eds) (2004) Food webs at the landscape level. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Pulliam HR (1988) Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Am Nat 132:652–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rand TA, Tylianakis JM, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  53. Ricklefs RE (1987) Community diversity: relative roles of local and regional processes. Science 235:167–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schoereder JH, Sobrinho TG, Ribas CR, Campos RBF (2004) Colonization and extinction of ant communities in a fragmented landscape. Austral Ecol 29:391–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shmida A, Wilson MV (1985) Biological determinants of species diversity. J Biogeogr 12:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Srivastava DS (1999) Using local-regional richness plots to test for species saturation: pitfalls and potentials. J Anim Ecol 68:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stys B, Kautz R, Reed D, Keller C, Davis A (2004) Florida vegetation and land cover – 2003. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, TallahasseeGoogle Scholar
  58. Thies C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Effects of landscape context on herbivory and parasitism at different spatial scales. Oikos 101:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  60. Tschinkel WR (2004) The nest architecture of the Florida harvester ant, Pogonomyrmex badius. J Insect Sci 4:1–19Google Scholar
  61. Urban MC, Skelly DK, Burchsted D, Price W, Lowry S (2006) Stream communities across a rural-urban landscape gradient. Divers Distrib 12:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Pelt AF Jr (1958) The ecology of the ants of the Welaka Reserve, Florida (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Part II annotated list. Am Midl Nat 59:1–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Whittaker RH (1960) Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr 30:280–338Google Scholar
  64. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Wildlife Ecology and ConservationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, DST/NRF Center of ExcellenceUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations